Ray Beckerman Sued By the RIAA

An anonymous reader writes "Ray Beckerman, known for questioning the RIAAs legal tactics (also for frequent Slashdot contributions), was sued by the RIAA over his blog Recording Industry vs. People. In question is the 'vexatious' claims that the RIAAs legal tactics is a 'sham.' Beckerman is quoted as saying that the litigation against him is 'frivolous and irresponsible.'"

Comments

RIAA = Scientology

[unity100]

they are some pest that needs to be eradicated for rational functioning of u.s. legal system. they need to be made an example of, for future generations.

Re:RIAA = Scientology

[TheGratefulNet]

they are some pest that needs to be eradicated for rational functioning of u.s. legal system. they need to be made an example of, for future generations.

to [mis]quote a movie:

"we're the US government. we don't DO that sort of thing."

seriously - we don't seem to make examples of bad businesses. in fact, we BAIL THEM OUT with taxpayer money!

don't expect the US legal system to 'fix itself'. doctors can't operate on themselves, in a similar analog.

Re:RIAA = Scientology

[joocemann]

thank you.

this is obviously an attempt to harass him. these lawyers should be de-barred (or whatever the correct term is).

Re:RIAA = Scientology

[Anarke_Incarnate]

He is re-approaching laughing-stock on the way back up to failure.

Re:RIAA = Scientology

[geekboy642]

Mexicans are now the largest racial group in California. Would you suggest California should make Spanish the state language? The U.S. decisively does NOT have a national language. If you can't lose your bigotry, then get out of my glorious melting pot of a nation.

Re:RIAA = Scientology

[Martin Blank]

Do you own any bonds? AIG may insure them. Do any of your investments own bonds? AIG may insure them. AIG also backs close to half a trillion dollars in collateralized debt obligations, and more than 10% of that has sub-prime influence. The holders of the CDOs are not just in the US, but also scattered across Europe and Asia as well. If AIG goes under, its backing becomes worthless, and all of those CDOs become almost impossible to move, and the bonds get shaky, and the entire world's financial industry takes a massive hit.

Re:RIAA = Scientology

[samkass]

Non-mortgage assets worth $1.2 trillion dollars. Their insurance business actually remains profitable.

Re:RIAA = Scientology

[FishWithAHammer]

AIG won't default. AIG has plenty of assets--the problem with AIG right now is liquidity, and that's what this loan is supposed to cover (operating income while the assets are made liquid). If the money's out more than a month or so I'd be outright shocked.

And the federal loan is first on the repayment list.

Re:RIAA = Scientology

[mmalove]

This is completely off-topic, but an important enough discussion that I think it's worth chiming in anyways.

Yes, many will feel the pain either way. However, I think the most fair and equitable distribution of pain and accountability follows the plan of letting those investors that propped up AIG take the fall for its bad business practices.

I feel much the same way about bailing out fmae and fmac. Sure, people are losing thousands of dollars in their home "values" and their retirement investments. However, the drops in home prices are a natural market balance that reflects a lowered ability to pay. More accurately, it better represents the real ability to pay, when the mortgage balloon game is ended. Today thousands of homes sit on the foreclosure market, rotting away from the inside out and developing crippling mold issues that ultimately can completely destroy the value of a home. Yet, the banks refuse to unload these homes at a price that would move them off the market immediately, choosing instead to let them rot to maintain their inflated prices. Let us not forget that from 2000 -> 2005, home prices DOUBLED. Their prices prior to this "collapse" were in fact inflated, are still inflated, and taking out the exhorbitant mortgages to purchase them at their inflated value, was a mistake.

So lets summarize - banks are holding houses they aren't willing to sell for what the market will bear, plenty of people need homes and don't have them, and the government solution is we need to bail out the poor, poor bank at the expense of said non-homeowners?

NO.

One can argue how taxes should or should not be used, but I think we can mostly agree taxes should not be used to redistribute wealth to the wealthy.

I think things are fine. This clearance sale on housing is bringing the price of a home back into the range that a young couple starting a family may be able to afford one on a real income. When the next generation can buy homes, the price will stabilize. And maybe the younger generation, which is currently piddling away all their money the Middle East, will learn something from the older generation, which did the same thing in the Far East, and instead invest their money here at home, so that when it's time to retire we don't have to resort to robbing our children.

Re:RIAA = Scientology

[geekoid]

Actual there are very good non racists reasons to ahve a national language.
Cost.
Once you interpret a document into one language, you must do it for all languages. This is very expensive.

Culture division.
Creating segments of the population that has difficulty communicating with other segments leads to an US v Them scenario; which leads to civil unrest.

A cheaper and more long term solution is a more widely available English language courses.
Encouraging people to speak the language.

Many people with 'Mexican' decent in California are multiple generation and speak English.

Re:RIAA = Scientology

[bigstrat2003]

Expecting people to learn the dominant language is not bigotry, it's a reasonable expectation of a person putting in effort to work with society. I don't have anything against some random immigrant into the US. Good for him, I hope he does well for himself. If he chooses, however, to not attempt to learn English, which is the de facto national language, that's just plain rude.

If you want to let rude people who don't want to put forth the effort to work together with our society be accepted in our nation, that's your problem. I, for one, want people who actually give a damn, and try to become better citizens.

Re:RIAA = Scientology

[psychodelicacy]

Have you been to Spain recently? There are more British expats in some parts than native Spanish people, and they really do expect to have their every whim catered for. English speakers are one of the most arrogant groups in the world, linguistically. The fact that our language is dominant in many areas puts us at a natural advantage.

But let's get this into perspective. Slashdot is on the Internet; it's not a country. Someone who posts here with less-than-excellent English might be posting from Mexico, or Lithuania, or Uganda. They're not refusing to learn the language of their country of residence, they're just not great at the language Slashdot chose for its website.

Re:RIAA = Scientology

[Kierthos]

He hasn't been disbarred yet, but it's proceeding that way. He's been recommended for an "Enhanced disbarrment" which would increase the length of time before he can reapply to the Bar from five years to ten years.

Given that Jack is 57 now, if he got that, he'd be 67 before he could reapply, and by then, who knows...

Re:RIAA = Scientology

[BronsCon]

disemballed

Re:RIAA = Scientology

[Seraphim1982]

If I could get money loaned to me at the rates the government does (0% or close to it), and was then able to loan that money out at 12%, I would call it a windfall. The government is going to basically get something for nothing out of this.

Re:RIAA = Scientology

[billcopc]

You read my mind!

Suing to quash hostile opinions is very much a Scientology trademark. Well... that and starting fist fights while wearing Guy Fawkes masks :P Sneaky bastards!

Re:RIAA = Scientology

[aurispector]

I'd agree, but to allow these banks and insurers to go under would result in a massive cascade of bankruptcies that would plunge the entire world economy into a depression, forcing people out of their homes and out of their jobs. Then we'd see the re-emergence and re-popularisation of radical politics like fascism and communism. There's a good chance we would end up in another war, possibly a big one since that's what happened after the great depression of the 1930's.

So although I agree in principle, I'd rather see a bailout.

Re:RIAA = Scientology

[tha_mink]

There shouldn't be a financial industry! Industry produces and commerce sells. Finance == value. You can print money, but that actually causes all money to lose value, which is the opposite of what a finance "industry" should be doing. There's a lot of financial commerce happening, though; our money is being bought from us at a deflated rate and sold to the rich for even less.

You sir, are a naive tool. The financial industry provides the capital upon which industry is built. Without it, the only people with enough capital to create industry are the rich.

Re:RIAA = Scientology

[Omestes]

Most of the private individuals getting shafted by AIG probably didn't even KNOW they were dealing with AIG.

Re:RIAA = Scientology

[midnitewolf]

Sure AIG might insure them, but the problem is that they insured without the capital reserve in place to back the insurance. They insured risky loans without the money to fulfill their finanical obligations should those loans fall through.

"If AIG goes under, its backing becomes worthless"

And one might argue that their backing was worthless from the start, just nobody knew it until the shit began to hit the fan. What's the point of having insurance if the insurer can't cover the claims?

Don't get me wrong, I agree with your assessment of the disaster that would take place should AIG go under.. But lets make no mistake, they dug their own grave here. They didn't start the chain of events that led to this collapse, but neither are they the innocent victims that some people claim them to be.

Re:RIAA = Scientology

[TrekkieGod]

to [mis]quote a movie:

"we're the US government. we don't DO that sort of thing."

Wesley: "I'm with Starfleet. We don't lie!"
(Justice, TNG)

I swear, the writers must have been trying a social experiment to see if they could make Wesley so disliked that trekkies would try to kill Wil Wheaton...

Remember Trekkies...as your God, I'd much rather you kill Berman.

Re:RIAA = Scientology

[Sj0]

Don't be silly. The US government doesn't spend taxpayer money when a ridiculously overblown problem is presented, the US government spends DEBT.

We're basically handing our kids money to companies. Don't worry though, all the middle-aged losers who are spending the money will be long dead before the time comes to pay most of it back.

Re:RIAA = Scientology

[BronsCon]

industry - the organized action of making of goods and services for sale

When money is "made" for "sale", all similarly backed money loses value. To be considered an industry, the finance "industry" must create money, thereby devaluing its own product. My aversion is to calling it an industry, when it is strictly commerce; the buying and selling of existing money.

The Federal Reserve Bank is the closest thing there is to financial "industry". Even The Fed, however, can not change the simple truth that printing more money devalues that same money. Its an industry that, simply by its existence, is self destructive.

Financial Commerce is a much more accurate term.

Re:RIAA = Scientology

[Mr2001]

All it takes to create industry is ingenuity and drive, the money comes (should come, rather) later.

How do you propose to buy equipment, rent office/factory/warehouse space, etc. without any money? Suppliers and landlords won't take "ingenuity and drive" as payment. If the subject of your ingenuity is something that's expensive to make, you'll probably need investors (i.e. a loan) to make it happen.

Re:RIAA = Scientology

[LionMage]

The U.S. decisively does NOT have a national language.

Perhaps not a de jure national language, but most definitely a de facto national language -- English. All of our laws are written in English. Our Constitution is written in English. All of our road signage is in English.

When my grandfather came here from Greece, he was expected to learn English to the level of being functionally conversant and literate. When he started a family here, he did not speak Greek in the household, he spoke English. Back then, acculturation / cultural assimilation was considered normal and proper.

These days, I see mothers in grocery stores admonishing their children not to speak English -- I now live in Phoenix, very close to downtown. The cultural assimilation is happening anyway with the children of these immigrants, many of whom are illegal, but some of the parents are actively opposing it.

And, oh yeah, "Mexican" is not a racial group, it's an ethnic group. And I would question your demographic data, since what I could find shows that hispanics/latinos only make up 32.4% of the population of California, with Mexicans being 25%, while non-hispanic white people make up 46.7% of the population. All of this was derived from the 2000 census.

Re:RIAA = Scientology

[squiggleslash]

Oh well, thats just a tough break if they 'take a hit'. Maybe, the AIG bigwigs should have though about the consequences of lending out money irresponsibly?

If you were advocating punishment for the AIG bigwigs, then I'd agree with you. Going bankrupt does not help you in any way. It causes a weakening of the financial positions of those invested in some way in AIG. The majority of banks, right now, are also having severe problems.

So what we end up with is a domino effect, where AIG fails, then someone else fails because AIG did, then others whose investments were dependent on both fail, and so on, and so forth, until you feel the effect anyway. The person who talked about investments and bonds is way off. This affects you if you do commerce with anyone at all. If you own a mud hut in the middle of Nebraska, and live on worms and seaweed, then yeah, you're not going to be bothered.

I don't directly own any bonds. I'm pretty sure my bank does. I don't know under what mattress my employer keeps its cash, but I do know it's dependent upon the financial system for economic stability. My employer's clients are large companies that also depend upon the ability to borrow money from time to time. And those companies are also dependent upon large numbers of ordinary people to have the wherewithall to spend large amounts of money, borrowing because the amounts involved are considerably higher than can be raised by stashing $100 into a jar every month.

And, for what it's worth, it's not like there's no return here. We didn't give AIG the money, we bought an 80% stake in them. Most analysts are suggesting that AIG can recover, and when it does it will be able to buy itself out of state ownership in a relatively short space of time, with the taxpayer making a buck in the process.

Re:RIAA = Scientology

[Free the Cowards]

The trouble is that such bailouts then teach people to take even more risks next time around. When the executives of a large company such as AIG are next faced with the choice between taking a risky road with a great reward or a safe road with small rewards, why should they not choose the risky road? After all, they're too large to fail, so Uncle Sam will save them if the risk doesn't pay off.

I don't have an answer. I can see that letting them fail isn't good either. But this is just going to make it worse next time around, the way I see it.

Re:RIAA = Scientology

[Splab]

No, you forget this is the RIAA, what we are looking for is disemboweled.

Re:RIAA = Scientology

[garett_spencley]

Do you also produce your own clothes ? How do you get around ? If you ride a bicycle to avoid paying for gas and a vehicle do you produce it yourself ?

What DO you live in ? You said you can't get a mortgage so I assume you rent. Your landlord still needs to pay for the maintenance to the property and his costs get passed on to your rent.

You grow your own food, great. So do I. I'm a hobby-chef and my retirement dream is to live on a farm where I can raise my own livestock. Now consider animal feed, soil to grow vegetables in (if you're fortunate enough to live on land with great soil and smart enough to have a compost to produce your own fertilizer then great, I need to buy good soil though because my house sits on mostly clay). How about all of the tools that you need to tend to your garden ?

Thanks for baring with me and yes I am getting to a point. When the US economy collapses the US dollar goes to shit. The price of imports increases and thus the cost of every day goods goes way up. It is nearly impossible to be 100% self-sufficient. It is a worthy goal to strive for but it almost can't be done. There are micro-societies that have experts that grow all of their trees and livestock and produce all of their own basic items for every day survival but a single family just can't do it. They can get close but you'll always need to buy SOMETHING for day to day living. And so you're absolutely wrong if you think that the greater economy does not affect you.

Re:RIAA = Scientology

[Fulcrum of Evil]

Slashdot is focussed on US stories and issues, so yes, its language is going to be english. You've got a lot of nerve calling someone arrogant for expecting decent english (dunno if it is - you didn't quote the complaint or the bad english) on a site that's pretty much all english.

Re:RIAA = Scientology

[neverutterwhen]

So people who don't speak perfect english shouldn't post on Slashdot? Don't get me wrong, I like the idea, but many would argue that blocking all US traffic would be a good start. Maybe people, god help them, read this and other sites to improve their english? Perhaps we should be tolerant of them? My German and French aren't perfect, but when I go there and make an effort to speak the language they tend to be helpful and friendly; they don't tell me to fuck off home till I'm perfect. Of course it's almost impossible to become fluent in a language without trying to communicate with native speakers, but don't let that worry you.

Re:RIAA = Scientology

[Martin Blank]

Insurers always have the risk of not having the money to cover claims. It's part of the bet that insurers (and the insured) make when figuring out premiums.

(The following is just general mention, not specifically to you, midnitewolf.) No insurance company can cover 100% of its claims at any one time. A company may insure $50 billion in real estate, but they don't keep $50 billion on-hand to cover it. They factor in the payouts over time against expected premium and investment gains, and adjust things accordingly.

Back to your points, there aren't many innocents in this market. It was out and out greed that got things to this spot (kind of like some of the problems in the financial industry in the 1980s), and a severe lack of caring about the futures of families that had no hope of paying off their mortgage. Business may be primarily about making money, but it shouldn't be outright lying to consumers, either. (Cue Slashdot cynicism.)

Re:RIAA = Scientology

[Maudib]

Did you see what happened to the stock prices of Sallie, Fannie and AIG?

Yes the government is making sure that these companies remain able full-fill their insurance and debt obligations, but the investors have been wiped out. This isn't a bail out where the owners get rich and everyone else pays. Share holders have lost all (or nearly all in the case of AIG) of their investments.

The bailout does very little for the owners of these companies. It is punishing in fact. The bailout prevents the rest of the world from feeling the massive and devastating consequences of one of these giants falling. It would destroy economies around the world, not just the U.S.

By destroy I don't mean that people who can afford to invest suffer. I mean most of us loose our jobs, then our houses. No student loans. No mortgages. No insurance payouts for houses flattened by hurricanes. End of times depression everybody suffers consequences.

Re:RIAA = Scientology

[genner]

You forgot: "In The 21st Century Nations Don't Invade Other Nations"

We're not invaiding nations we're fighting a war on terror. :P

Re:RIAA = Scientology

[genner]

I don't own any bonds. I don't have any investments. I don't even own a credit card. So, why should I be contributing to keeping AIG alive?

Do you have money in a bank? Do you ever want to see that money ever again?

Re:RIAA = Scientology

[neverutterwhen]

Correction is fine; telling them they shouldn't be here isn't. That clearer?

Re:RIAA = Scientology

[drinkypoo]

I'm a non-hispanic Mexican. My father is half mexican and his father is fully mexican. I'm also norwegian, polish, french, english, and german, so I guess what I am is a mutt. I don't want to admit to being an American, and I guess I'm not a very good patriot anyway. Maybe I can just claim to be a Californian. Regardless, no matter where in the world I move, I expect to learn the local language. What kind of idiot asshole do you have to be to move someplace and expect everyone to accommodate you? By the same token, if you want people to want you around on Slashdot, you should speaka da english, mang.

I really feel you on this whole cost of translating everything issue. I agree that people should have a basic right to communicate effectively. If they can provide a translator, they should be able to have one. But people do not have a right to force me to pay for them to communicate any more than they have the right to force me to learn their language in my country. (Well, obviously they do...)

Re:RIAA = Scientology

[timster]

I don't really think people "choose" whether to learn English or not learn English, as if they could push a button. I think these people have a lot of problems to deal with, the language being just one, and they don't have time to do whatever they want. Poverty is not so easy.

Re:RIAA = Scientology

[timster]

Well, the bar association recommended enhanced disbarment, but the judge who served as the referee of the hearings asked the Supreme Court to go ahead with a permanent disbarment. She cited in part Thompson's bizarre actions during his own disbarment hearings.

Re:RIAA = Scientology

[psychodelicacy]

...or dyslexic, or badly educated because your teachers didn't care, or the child of illiterate parents, or just plain tired after a long day, or a potentially hyper-intelligent foreigner who just hasn't mastered English yet...

I'm not a fan of poor English either - I teach the subject at Oxford, so I'm probably more aware of mistakes then the average reader. But when someone is obviously a learner rather than a sloppy native speaker, let's give them a break, huh?

Would you rather participate in an inward-looking forum where only native speakers with the requisite educational level are allowed, or one where you have a far broader range of opinions and ideas which are sometimes marred by poor (but nonetheless understandable) language usage?

Re:RIAA = Scientology

[psychodelicacy]

My comment about arrogance related to the fact that English speakers often don't bother to pick up the native language of countries they visit, they just expect everyone they meet to speak English. And yet when they're in their own country, they expect foreigners to have a perfect grasp of English.

hmmm

[nomadic]

He's not really being sued, as best I can tell from the article; instead, the RIAA filed a motion for sanctions against him personally (as opposed to just his client) in one of his cases.

Re:hmmm

[just_another_sean]

Right now Ray's blog is #9 on a simple google search for RIAA. Hopefully all the publicity this is guaranteed to garner will shoot him up to the top. :-)

Re:hmmm

[kimvette]

Link to Ray's blog with "RIAA" or "The truth about the RIAA" as the anchor text, and with "RIAA" as the title text. Writing a a few paragraphs of commentary about the situation will help further improve his page ranking as it increases the relevance of the links.

Read the truth about the RIAA here.

Re:hmmm

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

Link to Ray's blog with "RIAA" or "The truth about the RIAA" as the anchor text, and with "RIAA" as the title text. Writing a a few paragraphs of commentary about the situation will help further improve his page ranking as it increases the relevance of the links. Read the truth about the RIAA here.

Thanks kimvette, good idea.

Re:hmmm

[hey!]

It seems we have the usual thicket of suits and countersuits, so technically, he is being sued for suing in response to his clients being sued. Got that?

If you unravel this, you get to something deeply disturbing. He's being sued for defending his clients too vigorously. It's absurd to consider a counter-suit "vexatious". When a plaintiff with deep pockets goes after your client, you have a duty to keep the plaintiff from bleeding your client into submission. How could that possibly be "vexatious"?

If I read correctly a "vexatious" lawsuit is a matter that shouldn't have come to the courts in the first place, one that is taken to burden the defendant. Once that defendant has been dragged into the courts, most of the damage is done, and a judge is going to have to rule on quite a bit of BS that has been flung against the wall. The defendant's lawyer isn't obliged to fight with one hand tied behind his back while the plaintiff get to keep piling it deeper.

Re:hmmm

[ljw1004]

From my reading of the RIAA's memorandum http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/files/vexatious.pdf

(1) Their actual complaint itself said NOTHING about his blog. This looks like a bad slashdot summary of a bad article. The blog was mentioned only in background.

(2) They are criticising him and his client jointly for obstructing the discovery process and needlessly dragging out the court process.

(3) The reason they mention his blog is because (in their view) his blog posts substantiate their claim that he and his client have obstructed the discovery process and have dragged out the court process.

It's true that they point out that his motions were posted on his blog. But they're not criticizing these blog-posts at all.

In related news...

[Aeonite]

Beckerman is now also being sued for saying that the litigation against him is "frivolous and irresponsible.""

Doh.

Re:In related news...

[hansamurai]

Well now it's just getting pointless and annoying.

Re:In related news...

[kimvette]

You ought to have posted that as AC, because the RIAA will be suing you next for calling them pointless and annoying. ;)

Re:In related news...

[witte]

"They're so vain... they probably think this post is about them."

Re:In related news...

[kat_skan]

And for that little public performance, now you owe them royalties. Ask yourself: was the Funny mod really worth it?

Re:In related news...

[kat_skan]

Since when would the RIAA let a little thing like copyright law keep them from their royalties? What crazy ideas you have!

Pot, meet kettle?

[Saxerman]

I believe strongly in the idea of free speech, and don't much care for censorship or other speech restrictions. That said, on some level I think I can agree with the idea that lawyers are part of our legal justice system, and therefore to be held to a higher standard of conduct than we mere mortals. I mean, I have no problem saying the same thing about judges or police officers. I certainly believe they should be held to higher standards.

But the idea that the RIAA would say of Ray's blog, "Such vexatious conduct demeans the integrity of these judicial proceedings and warrants this imposition of sanctions." is completely beyond absurd.

The RIAA has been conducting a multimillion dollar ad campaign in an attempt to paint copyright infringement as a crime in the same class or worse as theft, and further attempting to equate their inflated 'losses' due to 'piracy'. Ray might joke and jab more than is 'proper' or 'expected' as a lawyer, but in my mind, that makes him a better agent of the court, not worse. And I fail to see how this lawsuit is anything other than a legal attack upon Ray in an attempt to smear his good name and discredit him as a lawyer.

Re:Pot, meet kettle?

[Danse]

The RIAA has been conducting a multimillion dollar ad campaign in an attempt to paint copyright infringement as a crime in the same class or worse as theft

Remember how piracy helps the terrorists and drug dealers? Think of the children!

Re:Pot, meet kettle?

[MyLongNickName]

Wow. Talk about taking his argument and twisting it up. If I as an individual tell my friend that I think this natural herb pill is the best thing I ever took, I have no legal problems if it turns out to do nothing. If my friends' doctor suggests a sugar pill to cure his multiple melanoma, I think Doc would be looking at a law suit.

In this case the RIAA is suing for something a lawyer did in the course of his profession. It is meritless but does not invalidate the gp argument.

Re:Pot, meet kettle?

[Danse]

Ahh, so special classes of people have special rights and responsiblities? In other words, all men are not created equal?

Some people are held to higher standards due to their position or job. There are good reasons for this, such as preventing conflicts of interest and prejudicial actions in legal proceedings. Without such standards, our legal system would suffer.

Re:Pot, meet kettle?

[Creepy Crawler]

---I believe strongly in the idea of free speech, and don't much care for censorship or other speech restrictions. That said, on some level I think I can agree with the idea that lawyers are part of our legal justice system, and therefore to be held to a higher standard of conduct than we mere mortals. I mean, I have no problem saying the same thing about judges or police officers. I certainly believe they should be held to higher standards.

But everybody should be held to the same standard. When people are said to be a higher standard, it reminds me of the dukes, earls, princes, and kings of old Europe. We all are equal here.. Though, the Bar could disbar him, though I highly doubt they would even consider that. Disbarment only really happens for illegal acts and consistent harassment using the legal system (the retarded ex-lawyer who badmouths games).

Judges are also majority voted in, and they can be voted out. I, by principle, vote the non-incumbent for judges. If they were good, sorry. If they were bad, thats good they're out. And I think they need a "break" anyways.

Re:Pot, meet kettle?

[hardburn]

All men are created equal. What they do later in life is a different matter.

Re:Pot, meet kettle?

[Suicide Drink]

And I fail to see how this lawsuit is anything other than a legal attack upon Ray in an attempt to smear his good name and discredit him as a lawyer.

...and to waste his time and divert his attention.

Re:Pot, meet kettle?

[Saxerman]

Er... yes. Special classes of people do have special rights and responsibilities. I don't think that has anything to do with how such people were created, or if any equality might have been used in their creation.

We empower agents of the public trust more than the common man. I don't think that makes them better people. But with great power... should come great oversight. The greater responsibilities should come at the price of some privacy. I'm not saying we should place cameras in anyone's home, but I wouldn't necessarily be against cameras in their public workplaces.

Re:Pot, meet kettle?

[D-Cypell]

Remember how piracy helps the terrorists and drug dealers?

Certain forms of piracy certainly do! It is common knowledge that certain gangs in the London area mass produce pirate DVDs to sell to fund other, more sinister, activities. If it is true in London, it is probably true in many other parts of the world (I just happen to live near London).

It could probably be argued that internet based file trading actually reduces the income of these gangs. The profit is all about being the middle-man. Whether that is illegal gangs selling pirate DVDs, groups like the RIAA or torrent websites funded by advertising dollars. Since the widespread adoption of broadband internet, and the development of easy to use filesharing tools, many of the people that would have used the gang funding guy who comes to the city's commercial districts selling DVDs will now opt to use online fire sharing. Of course, it is not always entirely clear where the torrent advert money ends up, but it is reasonable to suggest that it is less likely to be used to support a drug empire.

Re:Pot, meet kettle?

[PainKilleR-CE]

The appointment of judges is different depending on where they are being appointed. In most areas they are not voted in or out, especially in general elections. At the federal level (especially the supreme court) they are supposed to be a check against the elected officials, and not have to answer to the voters, but instead to the law and how well their judgment holds over time.

As for holding people to different standards, I tend to believe that there should be laws that increase punishment for any law broken by a politician or someone trusted to enforce and uphold the law. If someone breaks the law while acting as a law-enforcement officer, they should not only be given the normal punishment for the offense, but an additional punishment for the damage they caused to the public opinion of their fellow officers. Instead it seems that the law holds them in higher regard and doesn't believe that they commit offenses in the first place, so rather than being punished more harshly than the general populace, they are given more lenience.

Lawyers usually know where their boundaries are, though they like to dance on the line a lot. If the court told him to keep his mouth shut and he kept posting to his blog, he'll deserve the according punishment. If he had every right to believe he was not out of line in posting to the blog, it's very likely that he'll come out ahead on this one. It seems very likely that this is just another example of exactly the behavior he was commenting on in the first place, but it's really up to the court in this case.

Re:Pot, meet kettle?

[Dragoon412]

I believe strongly in the idea of free speech, and don't much care for censorship or other speech restrictions. That said, on some level I think I can agree with the idea that lawyers are part of our legal justice system, and therefore to be held to a higher standard of conduct than we mere mortals.

Lawyers are held to a much higher standard of conduct than "mere mortals." Although it is ultimately decided by each state's bar association, you can find the ABA's model rules of professional conduct here. Virtually every accredited law school teaches those in Professional Responsibility.

These rules are, incidentally, a large part of the reason that slimeball lawyers tend to have a short shelf life. They create something of an ethical minefield for attorneys, and govern everything from what an attorney is allowed to say to the media during trial, to what his duties to non-clients are, to what sort of information he can disclose about a case.

Without having a copy of the actual complain handy, I can't say exactly what the RIAA is accusing Beckerman of, but the quotes from the Wired article make it sound like a meritorious claims and contentions issue; in effect, they're saying Beckerman violated his ethical duty to only make meritorious arguments by dragging out the trial with motions, claims, etc. that he knew were not valid.

For what it's worth, I've followed Beckerman's blog somewhat closely. And if my speculation about the actual claims being levied at Beckerman are true, I'd be inclined to say that this isn't just a case of the pot calling the kettle black in some general "the RIAA is bad!" kind of sense. It seems to me that, in that case, they'd be violating the exact same rule they're accusing Beckerman of violating by filing this complaint.

But, I'm just a law student playing armchair lawyer here. Take the above with a grain of salt.

Re:Pot, meet kettle?

[DeusExMach]

All men are CREATED equal. What we do after that is up to us. Yes, special classes of people have special rights and responsibilities based upon their qualifications: Parents. Doctors. Teachers. Lawyers. Members of the Military. Politicians...

You should be held to the same standards as a doctor? When was the last time you swore the Hippocratic oath?

Re:Pot, meet kettle?

[HungryHobo]

Saying it supports drugs dealers is a bit silly since drug dealing tends to be self financing.
If terrorists are making their money from pirating DVD's then we're getting much more pathetic terrorists than in my day! In my day they robbed banks and held people for ransom!

Gangs perhaps but the more torrent sites grow the harder it is for them to sell pirate DVD's. (Fight gang violence! download your pirated movies!)

Re:Pot, meet kettle?

[ejWasTaken]

Umm..., I am not sure how it works at your doctors office, but a circumcision should not involve your ass at all. I would seek a 2nd opinion

Re:Pot, meet kettle?

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Certain forms of piracy certainly do! It is common knowledge that certain gangs in the London area mass produce pirate DVDs to sell to fund other, more sinister, activities. If it is true in London, it is probably true in many other parts of the world (I just happen to live near London).

Criminals, by definition sell bootlegs.
But it is one HELL of a leap of logic to go from that fact to the supposition that bootlegging funds terrorism.
It doesn't even come close to passing the laugh test.

Re:Pot, meet kettle?

[Kjella]

Of course, it is not always entirely clear where the torrent advert money ends up, but it is reasonable to suggest that it is less likely to be used to support a drug empire.

And that whole sentence is an example of confusion 101. Any of commercial piracy or drug trade or pimping hookers or modern slave trade or collecting protection money or illegal gambling or sell kiddie porn or whatever the fuck else organized crime do, it makes money. The reason they do commercial piracy and drug trade and pimping hookers and modern slave trade and collecting protection money and illegal gambling and sell kiddie porn is to make the grand total as big as possible, and how much you pirate makes no difference at all on anything else. The only thing that could have a hint of truth is possibly terrorism since it's an expense, but I figure that's probably well funded through legal income diverted to it. There's certainly no reason to believe drug kingpins are more willing to give away their earnings than anyone else. But hey, I guess the FUD is working.

Re:Pot, meet kettle?

[Pig Hogger]

Certain forms of piracy certainly do! It is common knowledge that certain gangs in the London area mass produce pirate DVDs to sell to fund other, more sinister, activities.

In that case, P2P "do-it-yourself" "piracy" will neatly solve that problem by removing the market from under the commercial "pirates" feet.

In a sense, criminalizing "piracy" will only increase the crime rate...

And who benefits from a "higher" crime rate? Fascists who want to turn $COUNTRY into a police state.

Re:Pot, meet kettle?

[DM9290]

Criminals, by definition sell bootlegs.

There are lots of convicted criminals who never sold a bootleg. I guess they should be pardoned, since obviously their has been a miscarriage of justice here.

Re:Pot, meet kettle?

[Firehed]

Certain forms of piracy certainly do! It is common knowledge that certain gangs in the London area mass produce pirate DVDs to sell to fund other, more sinister, activities. If it is true in London, it is probably true in many other parts of the world (I just happen to live near London).

Yes, and people that PAY for pirated material are douche bags. What's your point? If you're too much of a cheap-ass to pay full price, then steal it via TPB. I realize that people will steal my and others' work and quite frankly I don't care - so long as my name is still attached to it, I'm still getting exposure, which is a good thing even if it's not as good as it could be. If someone else is profiting from my work (ie, not a legitmate reseller where I'm still seeing some of it), then that person can go shove a skyscraper up his ass.

For all of the shit that internet pirates take about moral issues, it's the people that buy bootlegs out of the trunk (boot, you Londoner!) of a car that have the real issue. Not only does the person that produced the content not see a cent, but some random asshole profits from it. "Well as long as I paid something, it's on them to make it right" must be the argument, but that's BS through-and-through.

You make a fair point about the advertisements on the torrent sites. It's a substantial chunk of change, but so are their server costs (especially TPB, that's been raided and moved countries a couple of times). I'm sure the guys running it are doing all right for themselves. BUT the difference is that I'm still not paying for it. The 'premium' (paid) access to some trackers is just as bad as buying bootlegs since you're paying someone who's in no way supporting the content producer for access to said content. The price you pay for each piece of content may be substantially less, but you're still opening your wallet. Of course that kind of paid system COULD be legitimized in a method not entirely unlike a piracy tax of sorts (which the content producers actually see).

Anyways, </rant> If you're going to pirate, have fun. But don't PAY to steal something. It's retarded on so many levels it's not even funny.

Re:Pot, meet kettle?

[Foobar of Borg]

Which is almost never a problem. If it ever does accumulate in any noticeable amount, a little warm water will do the trick. Again, genital mutilation is not the answer.

Just out of curiosity, what does genital mutilation have to do with Ray Beckerman being sued by the RIAA?

Vexatious

[_PimpDaddy7_]

Yah I didn't know the meaning either:

Main Entry:
        vexatious Listen to the pronunciation of vexatious
Pronunciation:
        \-shs\
Function:
        adjective
Date:
        1534

1 a: causing vexation : distressing b: intended to harass 2: full of disorder or stress : troubled

FTA:
The RIAA said Beckerman, one of the nation's few attorneys who defends accused file sharers, "has maintained an anti-recording industry blog during the course of this case and has consistently posted virtually every one of his baseless motions on his blog seeking to bolster his public relations campaign and embarrass plaintiffs," the RIAA wrote (.pdf) in court briefs. "Such vexatious conduct demeans the integrity of these judicial proceedings and warrants this imposition of sanctions."

BASELESS motions? Sure, what lawyer wouldn't want to bolster his PR, but maybe, JUST maybe, the motions ARE baseless?
EMBARRASS plaintiffs? Look, if you are suing someone, you better BE PREPARED. It's as simple as that. There's nothing about getting embarrassed if you are going to sue.

The RIAA really sounds like it's going out on a whim here. Maybe suing your own customers is a bad idea, do they get it yet? Geesh, I wish the RIAA would just GO AWAY!

Re:Vexatious

[Just Some Guy]

So can Ray sue them for professional libel for stating that all of his claims are baseless?

Re:Vexatious

[conlaw]

Your definition of vexatious is correct as far as ordinary English usage goes; however, here's more from a legal dictionary:

Litigation is typically classified as vexatious when an attorney or a pro se litigant (a person representing himself without an attorney) repeatedly files groundless lawsuits and repeatedly loses.

It sure seems to me as an observer of this ongoing imbroglio that all of the vexatiousness is on the part of RIAA.

Keep up the good work, Ray.

Re:Vexatious

[ari_j]

Probably not. Lawyers saying things about each other's claims on behalf of clients are generally given a lot of leeway before anyone hits the "defamation" button. Also, there's the problem that he'd have to prove damages - which means he'd have to prove that someone actually believed what the RIAA said.

Re:Vexatious

[CaptainZapp]

Personally I hope that he vexates the flying fuck out of those bastards.

My Favourite Part

[whisper_jeff]

This is probably my favourite part of the situation - "Readers should note the cover sheet (.pdf) of the court filing lists Richard Gabriel as the RIAA's lead counsel. Gabriel was named a Colorado judge in May and no longer works on behalf of the RIAA." Yeah. Ok. Good work there guys.

Dumbasses

[CSMatt]

I guess the RIAA decided to take a page from the MPAA's playbook on this one.

Too bad NYCL can't comment on the suit.

Re:Dumbasses

[Anonymous Coward]

> Too bad NYCL can't comment on the suit.

Hm.. that actually might be why they did it. If they can relate all of his other cases to this one, such that he can't comment on them, either, as they're involved in the pending one, then he can't cheerlead on here in topics related to his cases.

Re:Dumbasses

[Machtyn]

So stated by an AC! Is that you, Ray?

The guy can at least defend himself

[slaker]

Honestly, this is a fortunate turn of events. This gentleman is at least capable of defending himself against whatever accusations RIAA is making against him, while at the same time consuming time and legal resources that the fuckwits at RIAA could be using to put another party in legal jeopardy.

In fact, since this is not the same as the boilerplate legal case that RIAA makes against thousands of consumers annually, it probably also consumed more resources. We should all be thankful that RIAA has chosen this course of action.

Re:The guy can at least defend himself

[shma]

I have little doubt that the goal is not to win the lawsuit, but to waste his time. They're hoping that the triple burden of his day job, his blog, and defending this lawsuit will be too much.

Don't give in to them, Ray. It's important for us to have this blog asa counter-attack to the RIAA BS machine.

Re:The guy can at least defend himself

[mooingyak]

Don't give in to them, Ray.

Right. Because the first thing that popped into my head when I read the summary was "Oh, he'll probably just lay down and take this. No fight in that guy."

Defending file-sharers

[oahazmatt]

The RIAA said Beckerman, one of the nation's few attorneys who defends accused file sharers

How DARE he!!!

Re:Defending file-sharers

[Anonymous Coward]

The RIAA said Beckerman, one of the nation's few attorneys who defends accused file sharers

How DARE he!!!

It's a slippery slope.

Next thing you know lawyers will be required to represent thieves, rapists and murderers.

Re:Defending file-sharers

[JustinOpinion]

Indeed.

Actually I wonder if this is just an extension of the RIAA's legal tactics to the lawyers themselves. Previously, they would sue people in order to intimidate them into settling and/or not file-sharing. Now, they are applying the same logic to lawyers: suing lawyers with the audacity to defend file-sharers, so as to intimidate other potential defense lawyers from even taking a file-sharing case.

As usual, even if the RIAA loses (or eventually drops the case), they "win" in the sense that they send the message that they are willing to make life hell for anyone who opposes them (including other lawyers).

Such a tactic from the RIAA is presumably illegal... but it's probably very difficult to prove in court that this is their intention.

Re:Defending file-sharers

[CSMatt]

It wouldn't matter. Unlike college students, lawyers have both the experience needed and the money to take these cases to court. Given the RIAA's shaky prosecution tactics, I wouldn't be surprised if not only every lawyer being sued in this manner takes the case to court, but a number of them are secretly wishing to be sued just to make an example out of their opponents and get their name out.

Re:Defending file-sharers

[Mr. Underbridge]

As usual, even if the RIAA loses (or eventually drops the case), they "win" in the sense that they send the message that they are willing to make life hell for anyone who opposes them (including other lawyers).

Problem with that is he's already decided that his mission in life is taking on the RIAA. Indeed, in defending himself, he has every right to publically make the case that what he's saying on his site is true, which would get him off the hook for what they're suing. Worse, the RIAA is giving the guy a forum to say these things! In that way, the trial is really about the RIAA - they say it's illegal to say mean things about them (why it would be, I have no idea), he gets to prove that the things he says are totally legit, and he also has the opportunity to try to expose the flaws in their litigation. He'll certainly claim that, ironically, the very suit against him proves his case.

I'd agree with you on the "send a message" aspect if they went after someone who didn't want a piece of them, but since they're taking on a guy who's been hitting away already, all they're doing is handing him the club that he'll use to beat them.

Note I'm not a lawyer, and I have only the best of feelings toward the RIAA...

Re:Wow. Though expected.

[nomadic]

Cant they dismiss this lawsuit on grounds of anti-SLAPP?

It's not really a lawsuit, it's just a motion in a case he's on. Motions for sanctions are actually fairly common.

IIRC, isnt there a ground that a judge can take away "lawsuit powers" when used as a weapon, rather than as to pursue 'truth and justice'?

Yes, but it's very rarely done. If someone is just completely crazy about filing multiple frivolous lawsuits, the court will occasionally order that the frivolous party cannot file lawsuits except through independent counsel; I think they did this to Jack Thompson. The theory is an attorney will filter out the crazy stuff, or face professional sanctions themselves.

Thanks RIAA

[omar.sahal]

This guy seems to have bothered you, I have never read his blog but, as you find it so threating there must be some value in it. Thanks for the recommendation.
Understanding complicated matters, such as law, is always hard because of the bad advice that goes about. I commend you RIAA for your services to education.

NYCL Posts?

[unfasten]

Is this going to stop Ray Beckerman from posting articles and making comments about other ongoing cases on slashdot now? I really hope not because his posts are usually the best way to keep informed about their cases.
From TFA

has maintained an anti-recording industry blog during the course of this case and has consistently posted virtually every one of his baseless motions on his blog seeking to bolster his public relations campaign and embarrass plaintiffs

This also makes it sound like that's exactly what they're trying to stop, him actually informing people (us) about their baseless cases. I wonder if they're going to seek a gag order?

Poor Ray

[oncehour]

Who will pay his legal fees?!

Everyone thank RIAA

[Umuri]

Let me be the first to point out what everyone's been thinking.

Thank.
You.
RIAA.
Morons.

I mean, honestly. We all are acting all high and mighty, but what we're really thinking is,
"What IDIOT up there thought it would be a good idea to sue one of the most competent, intelligent, LAWYERS who has already expressed a will to fight against their unsound tactics"

Lets take odds, who wants to bet they try to pull out of this the minute someone realizes what they just did, and someone is definitly getting sacked.

Re:Everyone thank RIAA

[brian_tanner]

Don't thank them yet. Yes, he is competent, etc. But fighting such an action still takes up his time, which leaves him less time to do the things that we appreciate. Their strategy is sound: they have an infinite number of lawyers that they can use to tie him up with this sort of BS, meanwhile he can't keep doing what he's been doing.

Re:Everyone thank RIAA

[TheGratefulNet]

Besides, this is a net win for everyone; suing a lawyer is a lot like getting into a car wreck with an insurance adjuster.

OT, but I did have a car accident with a laywer, once. the first words out of the guy's mouth were "hi, I'm a lawyer" or to that effect.

the bastard tried to call it a 'hit and run' even though I did try to work with him on his actual damages. he never contacted me and instead filed hit-and-run on me.

the last laugh was ON him, though; as I had just accepted a job across the country (other coast) and the 2 states did NOT have reciprocal agreements (at the time). when I moved to my current state, they asked 'any tickets, etc, on you?' and I simply said 'no'. they had no way to check and they accepted it. that laywer guy was left holding his (you know what) and got not a penny from me; and my driving record is spotless afaict.

moral: even 'lawyers' can be worked around. not always, but sometimes.

Re:Everyone thank RIAA

[kimvette]

I think Ray has been chomping at the bit, baiting the RIAA every step of the way to go head to head against them to bring to a very public light what a sham their propoganda is. The RIAA loves to preach copyright, and yet they conveniently ignore and even go so far as to claim the Fair Use clause and rights defined under the Home Recording Act do not apply to anyone. Ray, might RICO apply in this case here? :)

Ray, thank you for your hard work. I do not think that copyright holders should be deprived of their just income, but not all copying is copyright infringement (even when bypassing technical measures, the DMCA allows provisions for interoperability, which transcoding/ripping IS FOR). Also, the "punishment" for casual "infringement" is not only unjust (hundreds of thousands of dollars for one $.99 track?) but is illegal in the case where the MP3/MPA/AAC file has been burned/copied/etc. to media (Music CD-R, DAT, etc.) where levies have been paid to the RIAA. Those levies pay for the copyright, which makes it legal for you to make a mix tape for your gf/bf/etc.

Way to respond to a legal challenge

[Random BedHead Ed]

In question is the "vexatious" claims that the RIAAs legal tactics is a "sham"

The best way to show that criticism of your valiant, righteous lawsuits is a sham is to sue the critic for being so irritatingly vexatious. Now I (and I imagine this goes for everyone else here on Slashdot) take the RIAA completely seriously. I suspect a million geeks just stopped filesharing a few minutes ago, and that the torrents of the tubes have all gone dead: Seeders 0, Leechers 0. The RIAA has won.

Except ... all sarcasm aside, this is really desperate.

So... time for new tactics!

[herewegoagain]

Let's look at the tactics: RIAA sues many people... and publicizes it. Gets poked in the eye by suing dead people and people without computers...(in the mix)... Now. Things don't look good from a PR standpoint. What to do... what to do... Hmmm. How about getting rid of the defense lawyer!! Then things would be much smoother!! Maybe we can push him and silence him!!!!

Translation:

[twmcneil]

Nice practice you got there Ray. 'Be a shame if anything happened to it.

Google 'SLAPP'

[sgauss]

"Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SLAPP Good luck, Ray, I hope you own these bastards!

Who will pay legal fees?

[kennykb]

Who will pay Beckerman's legal fees? An interesting question. I'm sure that Mr Beckerman is well aware that the lawyer wo represents himself has a fool for a client.

Re:Who will pay legal fees?

[gnuASM]

Not only that, but Ray's specialty is in a certain area of law, not necessarily constitutional, as I would deem this matter may be within the realm of constitutional and procedural law. To me, at least, bringing litigation against an opposing attorney who is representing in multiple cases against you is highly questionable. Ray needs to be able to focus on his current litigations for his clients, and this act seems to me to simply be an attempt to violate the constitutional rights of Ray's clients through malicious litigation and a disruption and interference with due process.

I have not read the article, and the article probably does not even give enough information to make an educated statement and opinion anyway, but if the RIAA has a beef with Ray, and Ray has truly done something wrong, there are procedural rules to take in order to remedy the situation. Anything outside those rules, in my opinion, is an attempt to disrupt justice and due process, and is unconstitutional as it interferes with the rights of Ray's clients to be properly represented ("fair trial") without harassment and duress by the opposing party against the representing attorney.

I would also assume that we will not hear from Ray on this subject matter, as he should say nothing, until this situation has been alleviated. But good luck to him, and if every /.er sent him even $10 (lunch money), he should be able to gain some pretty good representation on this matter.

Sigh...

[Petersko]

"Is there a reason you want an album and then won't pay for it? Just GO BUY THE CD or BUY THE MP3'S. If the artist intended for you to have th emusic for free, they would put it up on their myspace account for download. Since they DON'T, PAY FOR IT!!! "

I've tried saying that here before, but you run into a brick wall of nitpicking denial. Somehow the idea that it's not physical media makes it impossible to steal. Or it's the record companies that lose out, the artist gets shafted anyway. Or real artists should just want their music listened to. Like there are no costs involved in creating music.

I've long since reconciled myself to the fact that while I believe in intellectual property rights, most people around me don't. Of course the vast majority of those people have never tried to make a living by producing something for the mass market.

Re:Sigh...

[Mr_eX9]

The "stop pirating" argument is irrelevant because the RIAA is suing people based on bad evidence, i.e. IP addresses. You typically can't nail an IP address to a single person because IP addresses change and multiple people can be using the Internet from the same IP. This doesn't even include the person they sued that had never used a computer.

Get a clue please.

Re:Sigh...

[Anonymous Coward]

"I've long since reconciled myself to the fact that while I believe in intellectual property rights, most people around me don't. Of course the vast majority of those people have never tried to make a living by producing something for the mass market."

I, too, believe in intellectual property rights. I believe that, as the Constitution of the United States lays out, that limited protection of an original work for a reasonable period of time, followed by the turning over of that work to the Public Domain is a just and proper incentive for creation of new works, and does promote the Useful Arts and Sciences. Furthermore, I believe in both the Doctrine of First Sale and the Fair Use defense which means I believe that I am allowed to acquire a secondhand copy from someone who no longer wishes to use their legally-acquired copy at a discount (or free) and furthermore, I am allowed dispose of my legally-acquired copy in any way I see fit, and that I may make copies, derivative works, or otherwise use the copyrighted material in incidental, non-infringing ways.

Unfortunately, the RIAA, MPAA and their ilk do NOT believe in intellectual property rights. They believe in something entirely different - the UNlimited protection of an original work for AN INFINITE PERIOD OF TIME, WITH NO turning over of that work to the Public Domain is a just and proper incentive for the creation of new work, NEVER MIND THAT STRUCTUING THINGS THUSLY DOES NOT promote the Useful Arts and Sciences. Furthermore, THEY SEEK TO ELIMINATE both the Doctrine of First Sale and the Fair Use defense which means THEY believe that I SHOULD NEVER BE allowed to acquire a secondhand copy from someone OTHER THAN THEM, AT FULL PRICE AND NEVER at a discount (or free) and furthermore, THEY WOULD PREVENT ME FROM DISPOSING of my legally-acquired copy in any way I see fit, and THEY WOULD USE TECHNOLOGY, LAW, AND ALL MEANS AT THEIR DISPOSAL TO UTTERLY PREVENT ME FROM MAKING copies, derivative works, or otherwise use the copyrighted material in incidental, non-infringing ways.

I fully believe in intellectual property rights; the problem is that the RIAA et al believe in something altogether different - I'm not sure *WHAT* it is, but it sure as heck doesn't look anything like intellectual property rights to me.

Re:Sigh...

[radarsat1]

Personally I do believe in intellectual property "rights", in an abstract sense, but I do NOT believe that such rights are actually physically enforcable. I don't condone copyright theft ("theft"), and I don't download music unless the artist or label posts it online for download. *However* I tend to think that DRM ("digital locks") and other technical methods of enforcing intellectual property rights are effectively useless, and thus whether or not these rights exist is, I feel, a moot point--- property is worthless if you can't defend it. So while I don't want to break copyrights myself, I really can't be bothered to tell other people off for doing it; they're merely taking the path of least resistance between themselves and the media they want to consume. The most it gets out of me is a shrug. If a company wants to invest millions of dollars into a medium that has no tangible existance, and therefore practically zero security in terms of profit, I figure that's their problem, not mine. I don't have to partake, but I don't really give a damn if they get ripped off, because it's a hole they dug themselves into.

(For full disclosure, I do download tv shows quite often, but most of these are viewable on their respective websites anyways.. that's a bit of a grey area for me, but it's a vice, perhaps a bit of a hypocritical one. Again.. *shrug*. Do as I say not as I do, and all that.)

Re:Sigh...

[Dracolytch]

Interestingly, I ~have~ created something for the mass market. Here's an interesting point of note:
The people stealing my work are not my customers. The liklihood of them becoming my customers is very small. Therefore: I am not losing anything (the cost to distribute my work is trivial). They are taking nothing from me... They are just using something they have no right to use.

Interestingly enough, this doesn't work both ways: It's almost impossible to take someone who would normally be a pirate, and get them to buy my product. However, poor customer service CAN take someone who is a client, and turn them into a pirate to spite me... But again, at that point, I've already lost the client.

~D

Streisand effect

[goose-incarnated]

The more aware the general public is of the morally-dubious position of the labels, the less chance the labels have of pushing through "settlements" under threat of litigation.

This is a good thing (not for Ray, obviously).

Re:This whole thing is stupid...

[fracai]

Silly AC, reason is not for this site.

Really though I think the rationale comes across as the belief that the content isn't worth the asking rate, so taking it for free is OK. I think it's reasonably arguable that the proper action would be to just not buy the item. Otherwise you're dealing with an item that is so worthless that it's not worth buying, yet so valuable that it's worth violating the copyright. If the content owner isn't willing to offer the item on the terms that you desire, it doesn't give you the right to procure it by different means.

This hurts Mr Beckerman.

[lazyforker]

Mr Beckerman's time is not valueless, and sadly human cloning is still not possible so he's also a finite resource. These RIAA asshats are clearly aiming to distract him from the fine work he does. If he's too busy fighting on his own behalf they'll remove one of their biggest threats. Their strategy is sound.

I'm reminded of the adage that a person who represents themself in court has a "fool for a client". Is this a case where someone like the ACLU or EFF could help Mr Beckerman? Maybe he will need to hire a lawyer to handle this nonsense so he can continue fighting the good fight? If the latter is the case then maybe it's time for /. to tangibly show support: with cash for a Beckerman defense fund. Does anyone know how to set that up?

Re:Where is Ray?..

[janrinok]

I know nothing about legal procedure in the USA, and precious little about it in my own country. But I suspect that it would not be wise for NYCL to comment on his own case here on /. and it might also be against the legal rules in the USA. Of course, we all wish Ray well but we might just have to wait until this one is over before we can get the full story.

Good Luck, Ray, for the way you have helped others you deserve some good fortune yourself.

He's not quite getting sued

[ari_j]

This appears to just be a motion for sanctions for "repeated discovery abuses" (which the RIAA no doubt has lots of experience with), which is different than an entirely new lawsuit just to pursue the matter. Courts can award sanctions against an attorney and/or against a party when they are justified by impermissible tactics, delays, frivolous lawsuits or motions, etc.

It's Time to Give Back Now

[CWRUisTakingMyMoney]

All,

Mr. Beckerman is, as most of us know, one of the most respected members of the Slashdot community. He's posted many, many stories and innumerable comments, all with great insight and actual legal information from a real lawyer (yes, HIAL). Over quite a long time, he's become one of us, and he probably has the highest karma in the history of Slashdot. He's done a great deal to help us all, and now it's time to return the favor. There are a lot of comments here about how dumb a move this is on the RIAA's part, and how they'll finally get embarrassed by NewYorkCountryLawyer himself. I happen to agree.

However, Ray is only one man, and the RIAA has the means, and probably the will, to throw so many of their lawyers and arcane procedural motions at him to make his personal life a living hell. So it's time now that we thank him and make it clear that were behind him. As for how, that's up to you. Maybe send encouraging emails. If he comments here, reply with your support. Spread the word about the RIAA trying to sue a legal critic into silence. Please, everyone who's been enlightened, informed, and amused by Ray's comments here, do your part in return.

Re:It's Time to Give Back Now

[CWRUisTakingMyMoney]

On the contrary, I imagine he'll hire someone to represent him (though Ray will not doubt assist himself). Someone above made mention of a legal saying (probably just here in the States) that "the lawyer who represents himself has a fool for a client." I don't know Ray at all and can't possibly say whether he'd ask for, or accept, donations to his defense, but it's certainly a thought. Any /.ers have ideas on other creative and effective ways of showing support?

Re:It's Time to Give Back Now

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

I figure a good donation amount would be the cost of one average RIAA CD. Wouldn't take too many people donating that to cover his legal expenses... All we need is a paypal link

Here's a PayPal link.

Years from now, when this is all old history

[zuki]

When people will be looking back at the madness, deceit, lies and coercion that has become so commonplace with some of the RIAA's strong-arm tactics, someone like Ray will stand as an exemplary model of integrity and fairness, refusing to simply kowtow to the unreasonable demands of a group of corporate entities who have demonstrated that they are utterly unable to serve their original mission (i.e.: be creative in providing the public entertainment in changing times) and re-invent themselves in the face of a mutating marketplace and technological tools, by providing the public with easy, ubiquitous and unencumbered access to their catalogs of copyrights, and have instead made it their new specialty to sue those who could have been their best customers.

Being slapped with such silly and pointless lawsuits over a blog is just a mark of how desperate some of those behind these campaigns of harassment really are, and can only serve to highlight that they are slowly running out of options of who else to blame for their own demise into obsolescence.

Hang in there!!

Z.

Re:Reading between the lines

[Technician]

In reading between the lines, I think it is important that he is not being sued for calling the Media Sentry investigations Illegal. If the RIAA thought they had a case in which to sue, I would have expected an attack on this. The silence is deafening.

I wonder if Ray can keep his blog entries up if he simply stated the line in contention as in my opinion.

The stating an opinion as fact is the basis of the action. His opinion may indeed be fact. It would be interesting if the RIAA lost and it was proven in court to be fact. I think the RIAA may have a tiger by the tail on this one.

ray:

[circletimessquare]

milk it for all its worth

this is called free public relations

when you ignore your critics, they tend to fade away

but when you attack your critics, you stimulate neutral party's interests in the issue under contention, and often times, if you are on the right side of history, summon new support for the good cause

keep up the good fight ray. consider the RIAA suing you a gift: you yourself are now fodder for newsworthiness

thank you RIAA, you fucking morons

Re:Or even better !

[mrsteveman1]

Which button do i press for all of you to shut the fuck up?

Old sayings

[the_arrow]

In Sweden, we would say that they have been shitting in the blue cabinet (skitit i det blå skåpet).
Go get them Ray!

So... he's trying to make them look bad?

[KillerBob]

I'm not sure they've really thought this through... according to TFA, one of the things they're accusing Ray of doing is trying to make the RIAA look bad. He doesn't need to: they do a pretty good job of it themselves.

Re:Or even better !

[Amouth]

the power button

Re:the Mark of Desperation!

[Spatial]

If employees of the RIAA step outside and it's raining, they immediately think of suing God.

An easy win, as he won't show up in court. The real problem is getting money out of the wanker...

I kinda doubt it

[Moraelin]

Well, I kinda doubt that even the RIAA can be _that_ stupid. (Though, funnily enough, every time I say that, someone or some entity promptly proves me wrong.)

Let's face it, today's lawyers are tomorrow's judges. I'm also going to take a wild guess that even today's judges, no matter how much they enjoy making lawyers work to earn their play, will not take it very lightly when faced with an attempt to bully the legal profession as a whole.

_Especially_ in civil cases, where really the whole standard of evidence is along the lines of "who's better at persuading the judge", you don't want to start from the position of the known bully abusing the legal system and work your way up from there. So the judges are one group they'd be smart to not annoy.

Also let's not forget that lawyers do have very large and powerful professional associations. They don't exist just to provide some exams for their members. And they tend to know the laws, precedents and available avenues. Even _if_ you could somehow bully one or two of them into submission, I think any attempt to basically carpet-bomb their profession as a whole into no longer being able to do its job (on some cases), might find some rather stiff resistance there. Sooner or later you'd find yourself not just against one or two lawyers, but against an entity bigger than yourself and more adept at working the system than you are.

As I was saying, I don't think that even the RIAA is _that_ stupid.

Re:I kinda doubt it

[zigmeister]

(Though, funnily enough, every time I say that, someone or some entity promptly proves me wrong.)

Hi, I'm here to prove you wrong.

Wait, before I go, it seems like I'm forgetting something... um, oh well forget it.

Perhaps that's the entire point

[sxltrex]

It wouldn't surprise me if this ploy by the RIAA was simply an attempt to distract Mr. Beckerman, who has become a bit of a thorn in their side. If he's busy defending himself he won't have time to defend other RIAA victims.

Re:Perhaps that's the entire point

[WingedEarth]

The RIAA just feels the need to lash out at someone before they go the way of Lehman Bros.

Re:Perhaps that's the entire point

[aurispector]

Probably true. I didn't rtfa but last I heard, being "vexatious" was not a crime, except to tyrants.

It's truly funny that all Ray does is point out the legal absurdities in their activities and they respond with yet another absurdity. This is a classic case of a big moneyed interest abusing the legal system against people who can't afford to defend themselves. From another perspective you might call it racketeering.

Vex on, Ray.

Re:This whole thing is stupid...

[Krinsath]

Really? A troll? Differing viewpoint sure...but I don't read it as trolling so much.

However, the issue at hand isn't so much the payment aspect. The RIAA has demonstrated that it is a cartel, engaged in anti-competitive and anti-consumer practices. They have their business model from the 1950s and they will see everyone in the nation financially ruined before admitting it's outdated and they need to change it. It employs underhanded tactics that are an abuse of the legal system, use unlicensed investigators in clear violation of state laws, and show very little in the way of ethics in their prosecutions. Attempting to interview an underage child at their school in defiance of the parent's wishes can never be excused for a private entity.

Also bear in mind, NONE of the lawsuits filed target the people who downloaded the files. Their entire campaign relies on the "making available" theory that putting files into a download folder is copyright infringement, so these are the people providing the uploads. These people could very easily have full legal license to the music they are being sued for, and in fact many of them do. This is not a redistribution license, but to say they "stole" the music is to confuse the facts of the cases. Given the lack of computer saavy some people have, they might not have even realized they were sharing the files, as the courts have determined before in these cases. The RIAA simply doesn't care...

Throw on top of it the idea that copyright is intended to enhance SOCIETY in the long-term and the farce that idea has become and you see a strong civil disobedience movement against a system that long ago ceased serving the people's interests. When you don't serve the greater good, as it were, don't be surprised when things don't go the way you want them to go.

Re:Or even better !

[somersault]

clearly, you hate freedom. i must kindly ask you to get the fuck out of america, not for your nationality of origin, but your diametrically opposed to our values views.

Someone might have believed that line 10 years ago, but considering the state of the US at the moment, it is obviously just flamebait. The American government certainly doesn't value freedom, and the citizens aren't doing anything about that, so how can you claim that freedom is at the core of your values? Is this the freedom to have a gun and be able to say whatever you want, as long as you don't actually do anything about it, like have a non government-sactioned protest (which is pretty much the dumbest idea ever)?

Anyone can Sue Anyone for Anything

[CodeBuster]

A lawsuit in and of itself really doesn't mean anything when anyone in the United States who fills out the forms and pays the filing fees can be scheduled to be heard in court. It doesn't matter what you write in the reason part of the form, the court will be happy to take your money and file the papers. I think that this is a foolish move on the part of the RIAA. Mr. Beckerman already has superior knowledge of the relevant issues and extensive research products and documentation to buttress his defense against RIAA allegations of "vexatious" claims. Indeed, the RIAA themselves are more obviously guilty of being vexatious litigants themselves, especially in light of their targeting of Beckerman to silence legitimate criticism(s) of their (the RIAA's) abuses. I hope that Mr. Beckerman makes them pay for their error in this case and gets maximum legal fees and damages out of the RIAA for their shameful attempts to silence his legitimate criticism. Perhaps a SLAPP counter-suit on behalf of Mr. Beckerman against the RIAA is in order here? IANAL, but perhaps someone who knows more could comment (Mr. Beckerman himself will probably want to avoid making comments about pending litigation involving himself or a client, as is usual for any attorney, so I will understand if he doesn't reply to this thread).

Bad summary; wait for facts

[Anonymous Coward]

Beckerman has not been sued by RIAA. Instead, RIAA brought a motion for sanctions in a case Beckerman was defending.

The motion is not aimed primarily at his blog. The motion requests sanctions in response to other motions Beckerman filed in the case. It also requests sanctions for the defendant's discovery conduct.

Hate the **AA all you want, but wait until the facts are in on this story. Did Beckerman have any reasonable basis for those motions he filed? Did his client destroy and/or hide evidence? The judge will sort it out.

Re:Bad summary; wait for facts

[cliffski]

The facts tend to get ignored on slashdot when it gives people an opportunity to have a go at the RIAA. Facts are only facts if they support your case apparently....

no, you get a clue

[unity100]

first, get a clue that anyone who talks about a topic is not necessarily an american, an alien wanting to be an american or any other shit.

im a turk living in a tourism resort in mediterranean coast. my english far exceeds what should i know. therefore im in no way obliged to fulfill your linguistic expectations in regard to english.

another advice - learn to value content over presentation.

Re:no, you get a clue

[nog_lorp]

Here here. I was going to say, "Have you been to the interweb lately? People from places besides the USA can use it too!"

I've traveled significantly more than most people, and I for one can say, any argument to the effect of "Do you think people in XXX would put up with..." is bullshit. People around the world are more than gracious and will go to great lengths to help you if you don't speak the language. I've been to France, Spain, Germany, Japan, Morocco, Mexico, Holland, Almost all of South America. And I've never known more then 10 words of another language (till recently). I've also never had someone treat me badly because of it. Us asshole 'Americans' could learn from their examples.

Re:no, you get a clue

[WNight]

Racist.

Well, countryist. "Us asshole Americans"...

Way to lump a few ignorant god-botherers ranting about racial impurity and anti-furriner idiots rating about welfare money into a group and label it "everyone in America".

I wouldn't mind a guest who spoke little to no English, as long as they realized the delay in finding a bathroom was their fault... But a neighbor, who then started to demand that I spend money translating street signs, no.

Depends on the context.

Re:no, you get a clue

[IorDMUX]

People are people, no matter where you go.

I'm from the USA, and recently traveled to Italy with little warning and thus little preparation. I speak a decent amount of Spanish, but no Italian. I put forth an effort to learn as many useful parts of the language as I could, as fast as I could, but was obviously still woefully unprepared to carry on a conversation in Italian when I arrived.

Some people were nice about it. They'd wait patiently as I consulted a translation dictionary for the missing word, try to help with hand signs or synonyms, or find someone who spoke English if all else failed. (And they were generally happy for my tourism dollars, too.)

Some other people... not quite. I knew enough of the language to know when I was being berated for not speaking correctly (they always say the first words you learn are 'yes', 'no', 'hello', 'thank you', and then all the curses). One gas station attendant even physically shoved me while cursing me (in Italian) for my lack of comprehension when I asked him which gas type my rental car used.

I mean, I live in Silicon Valley and hear at least 5 different languages between the office, the park, and my apartment every day. (And yes, I'm a Midwestern Caucasian of Italian descent.) The only time I'm bothered is when I feel guilty for having to ask someone to repeat themselves because of their accent (and my hearing difficulty).

So yeah. I think people will be people and continue to be widely distributed in their views and bigotries. I wish more Americans would be more understanding of culture differences, and, after traveling to Italy, I wish more Italians would be, too. (And I've never heard someone seriously use that argument, but I can certainly see some people being closed-minded enough to try.) Us "asshole 'Americans' " aren't all bigots, nor are "they" all perfectly welcoming fellows.

*shrug* ... The plural of anecdote is not data and It's A Small World After All, etc., etc., etc.

No. Privilege & the "actual malice" requireme

[Valdrax]

No. Accusations in a court of law are privileged communication and have been traditionally recognized as exempt.

Under the common law, an act of libel used to have strict liability on the falsity of one's claims*, with intent only required for the act of publication, so there would have been very serious legal implications if one could've been sued for libel for statements made in court back in the day. If that were possible, then any plaintiff (and many defendants making counterclaims) who lost in court would be guilty of libel -- they would've deliberately published a statement that happened to be determined to be false by a court of law, and their statements would tend to be the sort of thing to harm one's reputation if true.

(* This is no longer true. See New York Times Co. v. Sullivan and Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. .)

Lawyers who knowingly press false claims though can be caught be civil procedure sanctions for not acting in "good faith" and related torts for barratry and the like (... like the one the RIAA is suing Mr. Beckerman with). The standard for winning on those can be pretty high, though. Courts disfavor slapping down people for suing over things that there's even the slightest chance they could legitimately win on unless their behavior is egregious.

Not knowing anything more about the body of law he's being sued under, I won't comment further on the possible merits (or lack thereof) of the RIAA's case. However, there's no libel case against them for this. (And even if the communication wasn't privileged, under NY Times v. Sullivan, Mr. Beckerman would have a hard time prevailing as a public figure given the "actual malice" standard for defamation of public figures established there.)

(IANAL. Do not rely on this information in figuring out what you can get away with.)

Re:Or even better !

[Anonymous Coward]

hey it worked the voices finely stopped.

Re:Reading between the lines

[DM9290]

I wonder if Ray can keep his blog entries up if he simply stated the line in contention as in my opinion.

"in my opinion" is not a magic word that lets you defame people with impunity.

Thanks, folks....

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

Thanks for the support. The RIAA's motion is frivolous, and I will be responding to it in short order. The responsive papers are due October 13th.

It's just an obvious attempt on their part to weasel out of their liability for attorneys fees, after torturing this innocent woman for the past 3 years.

Some folks have indicated an interest in contributing financially.

Anyone who wants to contribute to Ms. Lindor can do so here. Anyone who wants to contribute to the Expert Witness Defense Fund, which helps people like Ms. Lindor with hiring experts and tech consultants can do so here. Anyone who wants to contribute to me, to help me with the work I do in my blogging and getting the word out, can do so here. Another way to help out my blog is to make purchases through the affiliate ads I post on the blog. (If there are products or services you're looking for that aren't represented there, let me know, and I'll try to get affiliate ads posted for them.

Here is my post providing the details of the accusations.

The RIAA's litigation campaign is in its death throes, as are the 4 big record companies who are behind it. I guess this is the way dying hyenas act, they lash out. Not to worry, they will still lose.

Re:Thanks, folks....

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

OK sorry about that. To make a contribution to Ms. Lindor, go here and click on PayPal button.

Bad Summary!

[SQFreak]

The RIAA is not suing Ray Beckerman!

This is not a lawsuit or countersuit. Instead, it is a Rule 37 Motion for Sanctions regarding discovery. (See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37.) The claims are an awful lot like a Rule 11 motion, though. I would think they'd try to move for sanctions under Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b)(3) (stating that the claims have no evidentiary support). Maybe Mr. Beckerman could comment on whether he's been served under Rule 11(c)(2) prior to filing with the court?

The plus side is that Plaintiffs are moving for dismissal, but they're trying to get the court to order it, probably so that they won't have to pay attorney's fees.

Re:This whole thing is stupid...

[ThaddaeusV]

A lot of my friends are working musicians. I appreciate the need for intellectual property rights and copyright. Travel, equipment, and other expenses must be covered, and the adoring adulation of fans doesn't pay the mortgage. But the RIAA is still wrong.

I think that the volume of exchange possible with internet distribution caught them by surprise. They need to find a new business plan to effectively extract revenue from the market as it is now. It may ultimately be impossible to prevent online free sharing of any data, copyrighted or not. It would behoove the RIAA to accept that the world has changed and find a way to survive in it. Their basic legal theory will eventually be found to be precisely analagous to suits brought by buggy-whip manufacturers against Henry Ford.

Ultimately, the situation will be resolved by a return to the emphasis on live music that existed before that smart-ass Thomas Edison and his silly wax cylinders started the whole mess. Live performances can't be copied, pirated or traded. Recordings of them can, but so it goes.

The internet has made the recording industry obsolete. From the dawn of time performing artists have generated revenue by performing. For a century or so, a unique technological window - the post-Edison, pre-Napster era - allowed them to duplicate performances and generate revenue for the same performance multiple times. Then people started getting rich, and then they got greedy, and now they're just stupid. The window is shutting, the cash tree has dried up, the golden goose is on her last legs. The result is that a lot of musicians and actors are going to have to work harder for less pay, like they used to do. You know, like Shakespeare and those guys. Whoever said that a little starvation was bad for art?

In the future, free online distribution will be seen as a vital part of the marketing plan to drive consumers to see live performances. There will always be a market for recordings, engineered and edited beyond the possibilities of the stage and combined on convenient media with attractive packaging. People will still buy CDs and DVDs, or whatever comes after that, but not in the volumes that they used to. Content providers will have to understand that sale of recordings is not a feasible long-term major revenue strategy any more.

I look forward to the coming of the new age. It will be different than what came before.

Re:Or even better !

[Mister Whirly]

Alt + F4

Re:Or even better !

[Mister Whirly]

"The American government certainly doesn't value freedom, and the citizens aren't doing anything about that"

All of them aren't necessarily "doing anything about it". I live in Minneapolis and when the RNC was in town, there were plenty of people "doing something about it". I can tell you because I witnessed some of it firsthand.

Re:Language isn't the real issue

[dbmasters]

Wow, that's just a huge assumption...I just want to be able to communicate with somebody without straining ans wasting a bunch of my time. Has nothing at all to do with their culture...

Re:Language isn't the real issue

[WNight]

If their culture stands between them and learning the language, then yes, ditch it.

Their culture is of zero worth (as mine is), and that much importance. Culture is just tradition, which is stuff we do for no good reason. (Or it wouldn't be traditional, just reasonable. Canadians shovel sidewalks, but not for fun or culture, but because they get covered in snow.)

Of course, they can follow whatever cute little traditions their people traditionally have, no matter how stupid, like cutting down a perfectly good tree to celebrate the birth of a space ghost. But these things are worthless, and we shouldn't cater to the traditionalist's demands for "respect" for their culture or we'll still be chopping down trees for this in another two-thousand years. Nutty old crap is nutty old crap.

Re:badsummary

[Firehed]

in their view, he brings groundless claims against the RIAA which would unnecessarily consume court resources

Oh the irony. It's almost painful.

Re:Where is Ray?..

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

Something tells me that he isn't going to comment here, as, I'm sure, all such comments would be admissable. It's fine to talk about other people's cases, but prudent to be quiet about your own.

Yes, no way I would say publicly that the motion is frivolous, meritless, and an abuse of the judicial system.

Re:Where is Ray?..

[TheSpoom]

+1, Balls of Steel

Carve 'em a new one, Ray

[hyades1]

"New York Country Lawyer" Ray Beckerman has probably done more to publicize the RIAA's thuggish, bullying tactics in clear, concise, non-legalese language than just about anybody else in the United States. And he's certainly done more than his share against them in court, if I understand correctly. It's no surprise they're targeting him.

I hope the Slashdot community is ready to help the guy out if necessary, because he's helped keep the RIAA and similar scumbags off all of our necks.

Re:Or even better !

[WingedEarth]

Freedom is our core value. The problem is that the government doesn't represent us. The American government is betraying American core values.

Re:Language isn't the real issue

[lowlymarine]

No, quite simply. If I moved to France, I wouldn't expect the French taxpayers to pay for an interpreter so I didn't have to be bothered to learn French. Now I suppose if these immigrants wanted to pay their own interpreters, well that's fine I guess. But I can't help but think it would be easier and cheaper to just learn the local language.

American Patriot

[tobiah]

America's founders were capable, wealthy men who took significant risks and turned down opportunities in supporting the formation of the U.S. I know you don't have to worry about having you house torched and family killed, but we know there are more profitable ways to make a living then defending people who can't pay you against very wealthy aggressive corporations. You give American Patriots a good name. Thanks for all you do.

What I want to know is....

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

why is this story, about a totally ridiculous and doomed motion, getting so much attention, when the story I submitted about the landmark Atlantic v. Brennan case languishing in the Firehose? Mr. Brennan doesn't even have a lawyer to defend him.

Re:What I want to know is....

[DingerX]

Well Ray, it's quite simple:

Slashdot gives you one line every two weeks. You get more when other people submit your stories.

At least, that's my theory. But there's a better one. You might see this as a "ridiculous and doomed motion," but you're absolutely on the money when you imply this is a desperate act by a doomed elite.

There are many other fine historical examples of this phenomenon (e.g., Chivalry).

What makes this "desperate act" newsworthy (and why Wired is keen on it) is that not only are they seeking sanctions about you, but they're doing so because you keep a blog about your campaign.

We're living in a time when corporations freely foist upon us unconscionable "EULAs" that oblige us to seek arbitration for any dispute with the large owner-corporations. As you know, the advantages of arbitration are that the costs incurred are prohibitive to individuals, and the proceedings are not public, so the owner-corporations can accumulate the benefit of experience at the expense of their client-citizens.

Those so-called "EULAs" are unconscionable for a reason. That reason is the same one that makes Groklaw showcase material for 21st-century citizenship, and what makes your blog (no shame in taking inspiration from the best) so valuable to many people. And that same value has made them both targets for the plaintiffs.

Yes, we read what you have to say because we have an interest in the war. And if we can contribute, we will. That's our duty as citizens. If the RIAA wants to sue thousands of Americans, it has that right. That does not exclude it from the penalties it may incur in doing so. And that certainly does not allow it to turn a public, legal proceeding into some pro-corporation arbitration scheme. The people have a right to public information, and all your web campaigning comes down to that: you publish information on the RIAA's tactics, successful and unsuccessful. I've been able to track the cases, and see among the defense teams who has been paying attention and who hasn't. The RIAA have seen that too. I believe they mocked you in the oral debate during when the Jammie Thomas case was (mis)tried. Since then, I'm confident that your website has helped redress the predatory imbalance the RIAA has been exploiting. And now they're feeling the tide turn.

Without sites like yours, there can be no equity.



P.S., I didn't see your post on Elektra v. Barker either. I guess that helps put a price tag on how much the RIAA's proposed sanctions are really worth.

I'm not worried about Ray..

[cheros]

This guy is so used to translate RIAA gibberish into the cleartext nonsense it is that I personally think they have made their biggest mistake since starting their campaign.

Ray, thanks for showing that the legal profession DOES have people with old fashioned ethics.

I can't speak for others, but I am certainly 100% behind you. Thanks for your work.

Re:Language isn't the real issue

[Fulcrum of Evil]

We aren't half as nationalist as Mexico; the rest of the world is far more strict on immigration and they expect you to fall in line if you move there, so that's not really a valid complaint.

By the way, not sure about lazy, but the macho thing is in full effect - the ones I knew were all about that, and the mexican parts of town were the places where women don't walk alone. I think the US can do without that part of mexican culture (although half the 'mexicans' in arlington are actually Honduran or Guatemalen)

Re: Bailouts as investor protection

[Maudib]

And if I understand the news about AIG correctly, the stock is only taken temporarily as a security. So if AIG recovers and can pay back the money, these investors get off way too lightly as well.

The feds took stock warrants totaling nearly 80% of the company as collateral. The warrants are basically options, at anytime they can be turned into stock that the feds will permanently own. There is good reason not to make it 100%, no one wants the fed to actually have to own or oversee the dissolution of this company. It would be far better if they paid back the loan and went on to be a successfully company.

So if AIG recovers and can pay back the money, these investors get off way too lightly as well.

I don't agree with this. This is not entirely AIGs fault. AIG insured a lot of bad debt its true, however their current liquidity problems are also the product of fear (due to LEH, BS) driven increases to what amounts to interest rates on loans that they (like all banks/insurers) need. When these rates went up then AIG's costs shot up causing the recent problem. Nothing changed at AIG, its just that because of LEH/BS/etc the market fearfully drove AIG's debt costs up, prior to that they were fine.

Also keep in mind that the the Feds didn't write AIG a check for $85billion, they gave them a line of credit. The presence of this line of credit could make AIGs debt costs go down (remember they are artificially high due to fear) without ever actually using it fully.

Anyway I think seeing one's investment go from $70/share to $2 is probably PLENTY of punishment.

What about Morgan Stanley? The exact same thing could happen to them and they are currently turning a profit! Right now the market is so fearful that profit/loss doesn't matter. Should investors loose all of their money because a panic induced mob crashed prices? I certainly don't want to see profitable companies like Morgan Stanley go out of business and fire all of their workers because of a panicked crazed mob.

Re:Reading between the lines

[Lonewolf666]

If my two-bit knowledge of US law is correct, the RIAA would not get far suing Ray for calling the Media Sentry investigations illegal. That is a legal opinion that may be wrong but he is entitled to present it. And there seems to be evidence that supports his claim.

If the RIAA can show him lying about the facts (perjury!), or excessive delaying tactics, the court could impose sanctions. In practice, however, US courts seem very reluctant to use those. I have followed SCO vs. IBM on Groklaw and it was amazing what SCO's lawyers could get away with.

Re:Reading between the lines

[arkhan_jg]

Some countries allow people who were not born in a country to become a citizen. Obama was born in Hawaii - in the US, making him a natual born US citizen. He then also became a citizen of Kenya automatically when it gained independance from the UK in 1963, due to his father being Kenyan and Obama being 2 years old.
Every person who, having been born outside Kenya. is on llth December, 1963 a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies or a British protected person shall. if his father becomes. or would but for his death have become, a citizen of Kenya by virtue of subsection (1). become a citizen of Kenya on 12th December. 1963.

Then he lost that citizenship of Kenya when he turned 21, as being a dual-citizen, he did not renounce his US citizenship and choose to become Kenyan.
A person who, upon the attainment of the age of twenty-one years, is a citizen of Kenya and also a citizen of some country other than Kenya shall, subject to subsection (7), cease to be a citizen of Kenya upon the specified date unless he has renounced his citizenship of that other country, taken the oath of allegiance and, in the case of a person who was born outside Kenya. made and registered such declaration of his intentions concerning residence as may be prescribed by or under an Act of Parliament.

He does not need to renounce his Kenyan citizenship as he doesn't have one. This meme is getting old and you do yourself no favours by repeating it. It's getting as bad as that horsehit about McCain not being a natual born citizen because he was born on an airbase in Panama, when the Canal Zone was a US territory at the time.

How about you guys elect someone based on his policies and whether they matter to you, rather than spreading bullshit falsehoods to try and win by dirty tricks and character assassination of the other guy? I'm looking at both sides here.

Re:Or even better !

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

Reading slashdot is not an obligation.

Now you tell me.